Talk:Prince Georg of Bavaria

Verifiability

What verifiable sources are there for Georg's relationship with Josepha Zapletal? I have only seen personal webpages (and copies thereof) which record this relationship and ascribe a son to it. I have never seen any print source, let alone anything scholarly? Is there something? Noel S McFerran

I was just on my way here to say the same thing. Someone, perhaps the same Internet "source", keeps adding the details about Zapletal and a supposed bastard child, and does not provide any verifiable source for them. - Nunh-huh 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I added two references regarding Oberleutnant Franz Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern, son of Prince Georg. He is mentioned as a close friend of a number of WWII fighter pilots, including RK winner Helmut Wick. The two sources mention Franz Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern as the grandson of field-marschall Prince Leopold of Bavaria. According to the author/s he was an exceptional flier and glider flying pioneer. Dr.Jur.Bolek Polivka

Actually, the references you added are a bit vague. Is The Life of a Hero Aviator a book? a newspaper article? References need to be given in enough detail to permit others to find them so they can be checked. THey should also be keyed to the facts that you are claiming they back up, since you removed the requests for citation. And please don't change other people's comments. - Nunh-huh 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have re-formatted the entry for the Wick book. At some point I will request an inter-library loan to see exactly what it says. I can't find the "Horrido" book - unless it is Pour le merite-Flieger by Walter Zuerl. Noel S McFerran 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. McFerran, I am not a royal historian, but while working on a research into WWII fighter ace Helmut Wick, I came accross a photo taken at Feldberg in February 1940. It shows Wick, Strümpell and Prinz von Bayern sitting at a table (as I assume at the Opel Haus). This is the photo that was published in Helmut Wick: Das Leben eines Fliegerhelden. I would love to scan it for you, but I do not have a scanner (although, I see if one of my "bastard" children can help me). Also, I am not sure it is the work by Grabler, as I do not see his name mentioned anywhere! This is a simple booklet 10 pages all together + cover. It was published in two editions (and variations) in 1943. The one I used for my research has a smaller drawn picture of Wick on the cover and it is sand yellow. The other booklet is an extensive biography published in 1940 by Walter Zuerl, München 15. It has quite few passages about Prinz von Bayern, including the one I mentioned already (identifying Franz as the grandson of the Field-marshal) Good luck in your research. By the way, I seem to remember that the same Prinz von Bayern was photographed with Erbo von Kageneck attending wedding of Franz Josef von Kageneck. Look into pictures taken at this wedding. I will look into my notes on Erbo von Kageneck as well! Maybe I can provide you with more sources for your research. As for Nunh-huh, I find your use of the word "bastard" wrong and fairly insulting. Today, we hardly ever use this word as millions of children are born out of legal wedlock, including mine (and just looking into recent headlines the daughters of Miss Jolie and Tom Cruise). If you have to stress that a child is born without his/her parents being married, why would not you use the word “illegitimate” or such. Also, in my capacity as an attorney, I shall remind you that once legitimization process takes place (as the entry on Georg of Bavaria says it did) the child is not legally illegitimate! Best Regards Bolek Polivka

Bastard is a standard term in royal genealogy, so you would do well to get used to it. It is a simple means of indicating a status that carries with it a lack of succession rights. Neither Miss Jolie nor Mr Tom have any titles to succeed to. As for legitimation, it changes a child's present and future status, but doesn't change his or her history. Feel free to choose whatever words you like for yourself, but please don't try to dictate the choice of others. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nunh-huh, I still think your use of the word is insulting. I just learned that all titles were abolished in Germany in 1919. Consequently, no one can succeed to anything (even though there may be some family succession laws, which I can guarantee you, are not officially recognized by the German Republic or the Bavarian Constitution). As of 1919 all hereditary and legal privileges of the nobility seized to exists and "Prinz von Bayern" is just a legal surname. It is like if your last name is "Governor of California". You have right to use this last name, but you are not the governor! I also looked through two royal genealogies and I did not find one case of this word being used when referring to children of illegitimate biological descent born after 1910. And there were scores of illegitimate children born in the royal families in Europe and elsewhere. Finally, I am not dictating anything to you, and I am sorry if you feel this way, I just find the use of this word wrong and offensive. Dr.Jur. Bolek Polivka

Read further. Or have a look online, in searches such as this. WIlliam the Conquerer was known, during his lifetime, as William the Bastard. And of course countless French bastards were named X, bâtard Y, where X is a forename and Y the surname of their father. (Genealogics contains over 214 instances). And of course, as you point out, titles are still treated informallly as if inherited, regardless of German law's position on the matter. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the "disputed" tag, which had been removed anonymously and without comment, because as far as I can determine we have not verified the tales about Josepha Zapletal and a bastard child. If anyone has found a reliable source and verified them, feel free to remove the tag, but it would be nice to make a note here (or in the article) about the source involved. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed tag, but described the story as "unverified" in the text itself. Noel S McFerran 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

McFerran stop vandalizing the content!!

On Wikipedia the term vandalism has a very specific meaning. Please don't make unwarranted accusations. I think that I have made it clear that I personally believe that there are significant holes in the Zapetal story. However, this is a story which is "out there" on the Internet. I would rather that people read it here where it is described as "unverified", rather than not read anything here and then think that they have found something extra (and true) when they discover it elsewhere. It would be even better if there were some evidence showing the holes in the story. Noel S McFerran 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's far closer to vandalism to remove attributed claims, even if those claims are false. Ideally, we would be able to determine if they are false or true, but until such time, there is no benefit to the reader to censoring them. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. McFerran -- first of all the name is spelled ZAP - L - ETAL. But that is beside the point. I also feel that publishing this information on Wikipedia is wrong. Until there is some sort of proof you should not publish it here for several reasons. And it is not up to you to make decision what belongs here. Follow the guidelines for contributions on the site. It is clearly stated that only referenced materials shall be published here. Besides the web pages, there are no references for the Zapletal connection (or do you have any data to the contrary?). I truly feel that who ever is an author of these web pages etc. is trying to smear the Bavarian royal family and the Zapletals. What’s worst you and Nunh-Huh are willing participants!! I nominated the article for deletion – Let’s discuss if the section belongs here or not and make a democratic decision.

No, you didn't nominate it for deletion, you "prodded" it. I've unprodded it. If you actually want to nominate it for deletion, the instructions are here. That would, of course, be silly, as objecting to one portion of an article is not a reason for deletion. - Nunh-huh 04:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An examination of the article history will show that I did not add the Zapletal story to this article. I have, however, edited the addition to show that the story only comes from a few websites and is unverified beyond that. Noel S McFerran 11:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I re-worked the Zapletal section as in its original form sounded a bit strange. You mentioned websites, but nothing on those websites confirm what is written in this section (excluding birth and death info). Also, in the initial paragraph you mentioned that the sources are ONLY websites, but the next sentence says that there are military books. I think it works better this way. In addition, there is a huge "unverified" sign above the section, so I think we don't need to mention it in every sentece in the entry :) If I can add few of my thoughts: I think the whole section should be deleted, until a published and verifiable sources are found. The gentleman was surely alive and he was a person of importance (at least as far as military history is concerned), but was he really a son of prince George of Bavaria? I don't have an answer and it seems neither do you (Bolekpolivka 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)).

The military books merely cite the existence of a man with the name Franz Prinz von Bayern; he was certainly not very important (as opposed to the brother of Crown Prince Rupprecht who had the same name). The books do not mention (as far as I am aware) any information about his parentage. Whether or not he was the son of Prince Georg is disputed. At the present time I personally have no opinion either way. Noel S McFerran 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. McFerran for your input. As I said already, I am not a royal historian. I don’t know, or care really, about the ancestry of Franz Wittelsbach Prinz von Bayern. My area of interest is military history and it has been for many decades. Recently, I reviewed transcript of an interview (probably one of the last) with Heinz Günther Guderian, son of the legendary German general Heinz Guderian. He served with 1. Panzer Division early in his career and mentions a man nicknamed Der Panzerprinz, a brilliant young commander in this division. His real name was Franz Prinz von Bayern. He may not been important to royal historians, but certainly notable as far as military history goes. I also mentioned earlier that he had some sort of friendship with number of fighter pilots of the era, including RK winner Helmut Wick. However, I still think that the section in question should be eliminated until a verifiable and proper source of the biographical information is found. Regards (Bolekpolivka 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)).

References

On September 18, 2006, Bolekpolivka added several references to the article:

unknown - Helmut Wick - das Leben eines Fliegerhelden - Scherl, Berlin for Der Adler, 1943, p.4

unknown - Horrido - Walter Zuerl, München, 1940, p.13-14,18,23-25, 29

I have tried to verify each of these references. I have located the book Helmut Wick: Das Leben eines Fliegerhelden. There is absolutely no text on page 4 (it is the blank reverse of the title page). I have also gone through every other page of the book looking for any reference to a Franz Wittelsbach Prinz von Bayern (or any variant thereof). I have found no such reference. If I've missed something, please correct me.

I have also looked for a book entitled Horrido published by Walter Zuerl in Munich in 1940 (or any other book of that title published by Zuerl any year, or by any publisher in 1940). No such book is listed in the Bavarian Union Catalog or in any of the other German union catalogues I have searched. If there is a more complete citation, please supply it.

It may be that the citations are merely slightly inaccurate. I have removed them until somebody can verify that they actually exist. Noel S McFerran 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi friends

For a long time this page has included the sentence, "Georg was known for his criticism of Adolf Hitler and of the Nazi ideology; he was a close personal friend of many other opponents of the regime, including Cardinals Michael von Faulhaber and Adolf Bertram." I don't doubt the general truth of the statement; what I question is the verifiability.

While Georg certainly knew Faulhaber and Bertram, is it really accurate to say that he was a "close personal friend"? Unless a specific source can be found, I will delete this. Noel S McFerran 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazis, Faulhaber, and Bertram

On January 18, 2006, an anonymous editor added the statement, "He was known for his criticism of the Nazi regime and Hitler and was a close personal friend of Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber and Adolf Cardinal Bertram." Is there a source for this statement? I don't doubt that Georg knew both Faulhaber and Bertram, but the phrase "close personal friend" needs verification. In addition, how and when did Georg criticize the Nazis? I have added the tag. If verification is not provided for this statement, I'll remove the statement until verification is found. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Succession of the throne of Greece

Even if this Franz exists, and even if he was legitimised, that does not make him dynastic. Furthermore, he was legitimised in accordance with the Bavarian royal house rules and pertaining to that. Therefore, how he could possibly claim succession to the Greek throne, as was indicated in the table, is beyond me. I have accordingly adapted it to show that the succession should logically devolve to his younger brother Konrad. The burden of evidence to the contrary clearly lies with the opposing view. Druworos (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

For the past two months there has been an edit war about whether or how to include any information about a possible relationship with Josepha. I can live with one of two alternatives:

• 1. don't mention the relationship at all since there are no reliable sources
• 2. mention the fact that this story exists and is repeated on various websites (the status quo before October 15, 2010)
  

I don't think that it is appropriate to mention the relationship as if it were fact. I have a slight preference for option 2 since I expect that going for option 1 will only result in the story being added back to the article (but without any reliable sources). 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)